For more than four decades, I have watched Illinois draw legislative districts. In every case, one political party gained control of the process and drew legislative maps that sought partisan advantage and incumbent protection at the expense of fair representation.

In spite of a broad-based consensus that a new process is needed, the last 40-plus years also have been marked by inaction. The conflict of interest created by having legislators draw their own maps has been too great for them to overcome.

All of this can change. Yesterday, a coalition of groups turned in more than enough signatures to place before voters this November an amendment to the Illinois Constitution to alter the way state legislative districts are drawn.

Under this proposal, the closed-door process controlled by legislative party leaders would be replaced by an independent commission that would draw districts with nonpartisan criteria in an open, transparent way.

Representative democracy does not work unless the process of representation is fair. The current system produces maps that are designed to protect the interests of those drawing the maps. Whether drawn by Democrats or Republicans, the distortions in those maps affect every policy decision made in Springfield.

That is why the Independent Maps proposal is so monumental. If adopted, it fundamentally will alter the nature of politics in Illinois in a positive direction by strengthening the linkages between citizens and their representatives.

This redistricting amendment is straightforward: Create an independent commission of Illinois citizens who would draw state maps in a transparent way, using nonpartisan, criteria. Those criteria would include keeping together communities of common interests — economic, social, racial, linguistic or cultural.

They also include respecting existing city and geographic boundaries and complying with state and federal voting rights laws. And the criteria prohibit the commission from favoring one political party over another or using district boundaries to reward or punish any incumbent legislator.

The number of signatures collected showing support for putting the proposal on the ballot make it unlikely a challenge to their validity will be successful. My reading of the proposal is in agreement with many experts who believe the Illinois Supreme Court will turn back any legal challenge to the proposal.

Yet political leaders in control of the legislature are laying the groundwork to challenge this measure.

Why use precious resources against long odds? The risk does offer a reward. If efforts to block the proposal from being on the November ballot are successful, it will relieve those in power from having to defend the failed status quo.

However, an attempt by political leaders to disqualify the measure means opposing a popular proposal supported by a diverse, bipartisan coalition. How often do the League of Women Voters, AARP, Common Cause, the Illinois Chamber of Commerce and community groups on the south side of Chicago all get on the same side of an issue?

Fighting to keep the proposal off the ballot will only confirm the widely held opinion that those who control the political system believe it exists to serve their interests.

The resources needed to mount a fight to keep this measure off the ballot are substantial. If the current system can be defended, then that is where the resources of those who oppose redistricting reform should be directed.

Illinois deserves a full, open debate on the merits of redistricting reform versus the merits of the status quo, a debate that will be decided by the citizens of Illinois at the ballot box in November.

Kent Redfield is an emeritus professor of political science at the University of Illinois Springfield.